If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In Trump's recent criticism of LeBron, someone pointed out that Trump always seems to reserve the "low IQ" taunt for people of color. I can think of LeBron and Maxine Waters, but I'm wondering if this is actually a pattern of his.

In Trump's recent criticism of LeBron, someone pointed out that Trump always seems to reserve the "low IQ" taunt for people of color. I can think of LeBron and Maxine Waters, but I'm wondering if this is actually a pattern of his.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

There are many legitimate reasons to disagree with him on a number of subjects, and many people of good will do. But there is no coherent reason for the left’s obliterating and irrational hatred of Jordan Peterson. What, then, accounts for it?

It is because the left, while it currently seems ascendant in our houses of culture and art, has in fact entered its decadent late phase, and it is deeply vulnerable. The left is afraid not of Peterson, but of the ideas he promotes, which are completely inconsistent with identity politics of any kind. When the poetry editors of The Nation virtuously publish an amateurish but super-woke poem, only to discover that the poem stumbled across several trip wires of political correctness; when these editors (one of them a full professor in the Harvard English department) then jointly write a letter oozing bathos and career anxiety and begging forgiveness from their critics; when the poet himself publishes a statement of his own—a missive falling somewhere between an apology, a Hail Mary pass, and a suicide note; and when all of this is accepted in the houses of the holy as one of the regrettable but minor incidents that take place along the path toward greater justice, something is dying.

When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end....

If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.

Last edited by LA Ute; 08-10-2018 at 05:05 PM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Life in the Trump Era, Part 2

It is interesting that the author is writing a story about the impact of a guy who is critical of "identity politics" by engaging in identity politics.

I think you’re missing the writer’s point. She’s critical of Peterson but is interested in his popularity as a phenomenon and as a reaction to what both Republicans and Democrats have become.

Last edited by LA Ute; 08-10-2018 at 05:10 PM.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Here are Jordan Peterson's 12 rules. This looks much more like trendy psycho-babble than something that will up end the political structure. (Besides, isn't the push for religious freedom itself a kind of identity politics? Or MAGA? Or states rights? Etc)

Peterson's 12 rules

Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders backRule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helpingRule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for youRule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is todayRule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike themRule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the worldRule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lieRule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’tRule 10 Be precise in your speechRule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boardingRule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Here are Jordan Peterson's 12 rules. This looks much more like trendy psycho-babble than something that will up end the political structure. (Besides, isn't the push for religious freedom itself a kind of identity politics? Or MAGA? Or states rights? Etc)

Peterson's 12 rules

Rule 1 Stand up straight with your shoulders backRule 2 Treat yourself like you would someone you are responsible for helpingRule 3 Make friends with people who want the best for youRule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is todayRule 5 Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike themRule 6 Set your house in perfect order before you criticise the worldRule 7 Pursue what is meaningful (not what is expedient)Rule 8 Tell the truth – or, at least, don’t lieRule 9 Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’tRule 10 Be precise in your speechRule 11 Do not bother children when they are skate-boardingRule 12 Pet a cat when you encounter one on the street

Well, now…. In fairness to this guy, I bought his book on Kindle and have read a chapter. Those simple-sounding titles/principles are intended to catch the reader‘s attention. He explores them in a pretty thoughtful way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Well, now…. In fairness to this guy, I bought his book on Kindle and have read a chapter. Those simple-sounding titles/principles are intended to catch the reader‘s attention. He explores them in a pretty thoughtful way.

Well, he has a hit, not that it's much different than any other self-help book out there. You and/or I could write a pretty good book on the topic.

Another Atlantic article asserts a man's desirability peak on dating sites is about age 50, whereas for women the peak is 18 years old, and declines from there. (The Kingstons should like that article, lol.)

Well, he has a hit, not that it's much different than any other self-help book out there. You and/or I could write a pretty good book on the topic.

Another Atlantic article asserts a man's desirability peak on dating sites is about age 50, whereas for women the peak is 18 years old, and declines from there. (The Kingstons should like that article, lol.)

It's better ready than Alex Jones or the Weekly World News, granted.

I'm not Peterson fan, but also not a hater—I'm indifferent. Your dismissiveness, found in your last sentence is just silly, considering how popular he is at the moment, and how seriously he takes his very legitimate point of view—not to mention how articulate he is. It's almost as silly as the linked interview below ... watch the whole thing. Kathy Newman makes an absolute fool of herself:

Your dismissiveness, found in your last sentence is just silly, considering how popular he is at the moment, and how seriously he takes his very legitimate point of view—not to mention how articulate he is.

In my last sentence I was referring to the Atlantic's current web edition / offering of articles. (Another example: "Dinesh D'souza signals the end of conservatism". Seems like a stretch, just as the evident "identity politics" of a large & diverse crowd of anti-white supremacist protestors portends problems for Democrats.)

I don't have a problem with whoever the latest self-help author is - young people need as much hope and inspiration as they can get, if the advice is sound.

That said, the attention grabber rule of "Pet a cat in the street" seems at odds with the rule to "Be precise in your speech".

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

This looks far-fetched to me but it is from Real Clear Investigations, who are serious folks. I'm just posting the article as evidence of what an unholy mess all of this has become. As for its accuracy, I'll quote William Goldman the screenwriter: "Nobody knows anything."

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

Well, he has a hit, not that it's much different than any other self-help book out there. You and/or I could write a pretty good book on the topic.

Another Atlantic article asserts a man's desirability peak on dating sites is about age 50, whereas for women the peak is 18 years old, and declines from there. (The Kingstons should like that article, lol.)

It's better ready than Alex Jones or the Weekly World News, granted.

What interested me about the Atlantic article on Peterson wasn't Jordan Peterson's ideas. It was the writer's point that already-weak political parties are losing ground to personalities, and the parties don't seem to see that:

When the top man at The New York Times publishes a sober statement about a meeting he had with the president in which he describes instructing Trump about the problem of his “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” and then three days later the paper announces that it has hired a writer who has tweeted about her hatred of white people, of Republicans, of cops, of the president, of the need to stop certain female writers and journalists from “existing,” and when this new hire will not be a beat reporter, but will sit on the paper’s editorial board—having a hand in shaping the opinions the paper presents to the world—then it is no mystery that a parallel culture of ideas has emerged to replace a corrupted system. When even Barack Obama, the poet laureate of identity politics, is moved to issue a message to the faithful, hinting that that they could be tipping their hand on all of this—saying during a speech he delivered in South Africa that a culture is at a dead end when it decides someone has no “standing to speak” if he is a white man—and when even this mayday is ignored, the doomsday clock ticks ever closer to the end.

In the midst of this death rattle has come a group of thinkers, Peterson foremost among them, offering an alternative means of understanding the world to a very large group of people who have been starved for one. His audience is huge and ever more diverse, but a significant number of his fans are white men. The automatic assumption of the left is that this is therefore a red-pilled army, but the opposite is true. The alt-right venerates identity politics just as fervently as the left, as the title of a recent essay reproduced on the alt-right website Counter-Currents reveals: “Jordan Peterson’s Rejection of Identity Politics Allows White Ethnocide.”
If you think that a backlash to the kind of philosophy that resulted in The Nation’s poetry implosion; the Times’ hire; and Obama’s distress call isn’t at least partly responsible for the election of Donald Trump, you’re dreaming. And if you think the only kind of people who would reject such madness are Republicans, you are similarly deluded. All across the country, there are people as repelled by the current White House as they are by the countless and increasingly baroque expressions of identity politics that dominate so much of the culture. These are people who aren’t looking for an ideology; they are looking for ideas. And many of them are getting much better at discerning the good from the bad. The Democratic Party reviles them at its peril; the Republican Party takes them for granted in folly.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

This looks far-fetched to me but it is from Real Clear Investigations, who are serious folks. I'm just posting the article as evidence of what an unholy mess all of this has become. As for its accuracy, I'll quote William Goldman the screenwriter: "Nobody knows anything."

So Clinton and the Russians trapped the Trump Campaign with the political equivalent of a Honey Pot Trap?

So Clinton and the Russians trapped the Trump Campaign with the political equivalent of a Honey Pot Trap?

It doesn't really change the fact that Team Trump jumped at it.

You're showing your cluelessness about the power of covfefe.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

I'm enjoying watching Omarosa gain credibility with CNN now that she has turned on Trump. Amazing how that works.

It is also amazing how numb we've become to this stuff. Maybe we should all step back for a minute and wonder why Trump would have hired her for a senior position in the first place. I think in a little over a year and a half he has made as many political missteps as all previous president combined, yet remains unaccountable for any of it, to the point where does anybody even pay attention or care any more? Pretty astounding.

I'm enjoying watching Omarosa gain credibility with CNN now that she has turned on Trump. Amazing how that works.

It is also amazing how numb we've become to this stuff. Maybe we should all step back for a minute and wonder why Trump would have hired her for a senior position in the first place. I think in a little over a year and a half he has made as many political missteps as all previous president combined, yet remains unaccountable for any of it, to the point where does anybody even pay attention or care any more? Pretty astounding.

He’s answered the why. In his tweets today he mentions her begging for a job. Mentions how everyone hated her, and how terrible she was. But says he told General Kelly to try and work things out “because she only GREAT things about me - until she got fired”

He doesn’t care how qualified someone is. He cares about how they inflate and stroke his ego.

George Conway Retweeted Philip Bump
Interesting analogy. Likewise, what if a CEO routinely made false and misleading statements about himself, the company, and results, and publicly attacked business partners, company “divisions” (w/ scare quotes!), employees, and analysts, and kowtowed to a dangerous competitor?

George Conway added,Philip BumpVerified account@pbumpHow would the board of a company react if the CEO told them that he hadn't fired an unqualified employee who was disliked by coworkers because the employee constantly praised him?

Omarosa's tell-all book is a big fat zero, predictable as the sun rising in the east. (She's not well regarded by African Americans because she's a gold digging egoist who wanted fame & fortune on Trump's show before, then extended that it into real life where lots of African Americans have felt something far beyond marginalization).

- the charitable view is Trump actually was aware, but couldn't man up and tell her she was fired, the guy who made "You're Fired!" a virtue among people who claim Jesus as their primary hero.

- the more likely view is he really didn't know and his role is pretty much the carnival barker, "the Great Oz", and not much else. This explains McMaster's "he's a dope", Tillerson's "he's a f-ing moron", etc, but it also raises all kinds of other questions... like who's really running the show, in addition to Stephen Miller.

For the record, I'm encouraged that senior cabinet officials crafted an agreement with NATO before Trump could announce we're withdrawing from NATO, or something like that. (This is along the lines of the encouraging words of the Air Force General that they're crafted policy on when they can "resist" an "illegal" nuclear strike order. The previously assumed "unthinkable" is getting some clarification.)

I intentionally block from my mind all news or commentary about Omarosa.

"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats

“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

This is old news, but I just read the opinion piece penned in the NYT by Comey, the comments are interesting because they run the gambit of emotions about the man. His defense in the column is similar to what I had suspected about him, although the IG report seems a pretty fair assessment: basically he made a judgment call, and it turned out to be poor judgment.

Thinking back, I can't help but be critical of Loretta Lynch who could have done one of two ethical things that would have avoided the whole mess: recuse herself, or never allow her meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton to happen. But here is the ironic thing if we REALLY chase this thing to the end: The person at fault for the whole fiasco and potentially ultimately the defeat of HRC is... Bill Clinton.

Had he not pursued a meeting with Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac, Comey would have felt no need to announce the conclusion of the HRC investigation and followed protocol and allowing Lynch to announce it. Further at that point in October, he also would have no need to announce the investigation was being reopened. He simply would have reported that to an uncompromised Lynch and leave it at that.

What an interesting, ironic and pivotal time in our history. Will we ever look back and recognize it for that?

This is old news, but I just read the opinion piece penned in the NYT by Comey, the comments are interesting because they run the gambit of emotions about the man. His defense in the column is similar to what I had suspected about him, although the IG report seems a pretty fair assessment: basically he made a judgment call, and it turned out to be poor judgment.

Thinking back, I can't help but be critical of Loretta Lynch who could have done one of two ethical things that would have avoided the whole mess: recuse herself, or never allow her meeting on the tarmac with Bill Clinton to happen. But here is the ironic thing if we REALLY chase this thing to the end: The person at fault for the whole fiasco and potentially ultimately the defeat of HRC is... Bill Clinton.

Had he not pursued a meeting with Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac, Comey would have felt no need to announce the conclusion of the HRC investigation and followed protocol and allowing Lynch to announce it. Further at that point in October, he also would have no need to announce the investigation was being reopened. He simply would have reported that to an uncompromised Lynch and leave it at that.

What an interesting, ironic and pivotal time in our history. Will we ever look back and recognize it for that?

I have thought the same thing--it all goes back to Bill Clinton. What an incredible lapse of judgment. But he is another guy who is oblivous to the rules, or thinks they don't apply to him. I don't blame Lynch so much, based on what I read about it. He sort of bounded onto the plane and she was sort of trapped. She acknowledged later that she should have cut it off or kicked him out, but that is hard to do to the ex-pres.

I have thought the same thing--it all goes back to Bill Clinton. What an incredible lapse of judgment. But he is another guy who is oblivous to the rules, or thinks they don't apply to him. I don't blame Lynch so much, based on what I read about it. He sort of bounded onto the plane and she was sort of trapped. She acknowledged later that she should have cut it off or kicked him out, but that is hard to do to the ex-pres.

I agree it would be hard to do, but then at that point she should have recused herself from the investigation and had one of her deputy AGs work in her place. Either way, fascinating to think about, I'd think that HRC would be kicking him out of the bed, but I think that happened years ago.

I agree it would be hard to do, but then at that point she should have recused herself from the investigation and had one of her deputy AGs work in her place. Either way, fascinating to think about, I'd think that HRC would be kicking him out of the bed, but I think that happened years ago.

I thought she did recuse herself and DOJ--which is why Comey made the final decision not to prosecute Hilary. I thought the only thing she did (or maybe DOJ) was to advise Comey not to hold a press conference, which he ignored.

I thought she did recuse herself and DOJ--which is why Comey made the final decision not to prosecute Hilary. I thought the only thing she did (or maybe DOJ) was to advise Comey not to hold a press conference, which he ignored.

She did not recuse herself, and to this day apparently doesn't see a problem with it.

She did say after receiving criticism about her meeting with Bill that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made on the matter.

As i understand it, the usual protocol is for the FBI to do their investigation, present the evidence and make their recommendation to the AG and then as the prosecutors they ultimately decide whether to prosecute or not (that is how it has been explained to me on both the national and local level). Then the AG can announce whatever they determined to do.

Comey's excuse was that despite their recommendation that Clinton not be prosecuted he feared that because Lynch was perceived by the public as compromised by Bill Clinton her announcing it would result in a credibility crisis and call into question her and the FBIs integrity on the matter (looks like that happened anyway).

I don't think he was wrong about that -- the Republicans would have had a hay day with that one. Hindsight being 20/20 and if he was solely interested in job preservation he would have let her fall on that sword and let the storm pass. I think that Comey suffers from some pretty big hubris though and felt like he was the only one who could defend truth and justice as he saw it. I also think he was a non-politician playing a politicians game.

I think that Comey suffers from some pretty big hubris though and felt like he was the only one who could defend truth and justice as he saw it. I also think he was a non-politician playing a politicians game.

I agree. After all the dust is settled, Comey appears as a spazz, an eagle scout who did what he thought was best, but made everything worse.

One of Comey's better moments was when Trump threatened "he better hope I didn't have a recording of our conversation!" which Comey brushed off as nothing, and we all thought was an odd threat out of the blue.

A year later, we find Trump's practice of secretly recording people to gather Kompromat & trying to use Sistema to enforce allegiance is boomeranging on him in the form of his ex-lawyer and former reality TV show protégé, who both have the audacity to actually use recordings against their former boss.

And regular Republicans finally started finding their voices when the Kompromat/Sistema manipulation model resulted in Trump disgracing the presidency and the nation in Helsinki.